Visual Limitation

[Kenneth Sky]

I'm an otolaryngologist not an ophthamologist but have some knowlege of the physiology of the eye and visual psychology. It seems that digital technology is on the verge of surpassing what we can see with the unaided eye. And that is the point of this thread. There has been far to much bickering and parsing about a very interesting test done by Michael's cohort instead of enjoying it for what it is - one piece of a puzzle in how to communicate visually. It would be more helpful if those who enjoy this forum and are capable of converting the RAW data to a large print would tell us what they see when the print is properly displayed under "normal" conditions. Of course these reports will be subjective. But that's my point. At the very end on this process of photography, it's what the human eye sees and how the brain interprets it.

[Gary Ferguson]

It would be more helpful if those who enjoy this forum and are capable of converting the RAW data to a large print would tell us what they see when the print is properly displayed under "normal" conditions.

Kenneth, I agree with your general sentiment that the next step is printing, that's my plan as soon as the DVD arrives. But far from preventing "bickering and parsing", I guess it will trigger a whole new round!

How large is a "large print"? How capable is "capable"? What's the appropriate method for converting from Raw? And what's "properly displayed under normal conditions"? Untangling those conundrums would test the United Nations!

[BernardLanguillier]

How large is a "large print"? How capable is "capable"? What's the appropriate method for converting from Raw? And what's "properly displayed under normal conditions"? Untangling those conundrums would test the United Nations!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, one way to proceed would be for each of the testers to use their normal workflow to come up with what each of them think is the best possible print at A2, A1 and A0 for instance.

This assumes that they printing skills are on par, but it shouldn't be very far from the truth.

This result would of course be impossible to share on the web, but we could trust their assessements of a comparison of prints line up in a gallery for instance.

Now, the key is probably that these gentlement are busy like we all are. They have already spent a significant amount of time testing, and are probably not able to devote more time to this.

Regards,
Bernard

[danag42]

I suspect that the denziens of the digital forums suffer from a serious affliction called pixelitis.  It happens when the number of pixels in a sensor is sufficient to do a job, (say a full page spread printed on a four color offset press through a 150 line screen) but the agencies and photographers are not satisfied unless they have enough pixels to print a billboard.

Pixels are nice, but what about the quality of the pixels?  Remember the eight megapixel compacts, they had more noise than the Boston Symphony playing one of Mahler's more discordant symphonies!  Nothing against Mahler, I love his music, but it can go through some pretty loud passages with every note in the scale played simeltaniously.

I think we have plenty of pixels for what we need.  Time to concentrate on BETTER pixels, even if they are not as numerous as the latest gee-whiz sooper dooper back.

I have a friend who works in New York, and he reports that the ad agencies have been hoisted on their own petard, they suffer from terminal pixelitis.

Let's concentrate on producing good images to suit the job at hand!!

 

[Ray]

I think we have plenty of pixels for what we need.  Time to concentrate on BETTER pixels, even if they are not as numerous as the latest gee-whiz sooper dooper back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72285\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But we are getting BETTER pixels, Dana, as well as MORE pixels.

A 20D pixel is BETTER than a D60 pixel. A 5D pixel and a 1Ds2 pixel is BETTER than a 1Ds pixel.

[Ray]

It would be more helpful if those who enjoy this forum and are capable of converting the RAW data to a large print would tell us what they see when the print is properly displayed under "normal" conditions. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think if Michael and company want to encourage people to do this, they will have to give away an interesting image that they might otherwise sell. Although I've bought the Megabytes DVD disc, I have little interest in churning out multiple 24x36" prints of dolls, balls of wool and dollar bills.

My position is, what I see on my monitor can essentailly be replicated on print. I can estimate from the size of a crop on my monitor, what the print size of the full image would be, of which the crop is a sample, viewed from the same distance I view my monitor, if you get what I mean.

What you see when viewing a print hanging on a wall will depend on the characteristics of your eyesight (whether you're short-sighted or long-sighted) and the distance between you and the print. If you are viewing a large print from a fairly great distance, say the other side of a large room, then it would make little difference which of the cameras in the 'Measuring Megabytes' test was used.

However, in my view, there is no 'normal' distance for viewing a print on the wall, just as there's no normal distance for viewing a vase of flowers in your living room, or a tree in your garden.

In everyday life when we view any object from a closer distance, we expect to see more detail and greater texture. The closer we get, the greater the detail we expect to see till we reach the limits of our eyesight. The photograph is supposed to represent reality. Ideally, the photographic system should be capable of displaying detail as fine as 4-6 lp/mm on any size print we wish to make. Then the only people who might be disappointed would be those who insist on taking a magnifying glass to the print   .